PHILLIP MARSH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Phillip Marsh appealed the denial of his motion to modify his sentence by withdrawing an adjudication of guilt for cocaine possession. The trial court relied on outdated precedent holding it lacked authority to withdraw an adjudication, but this court's intervening decision in Thompson v. State established that trial courts do have such authority under Florida Rule 3.800(b). The court granted the petition for writ of certiorari and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the motion on its merits.
A trial court does have authority under Rule 3.800(b) to withdraw an adjudication of guilt within sixty days. Although direct appeals of Rule 3.800(b) denials are not available, the court may treat such appeals as petitions for writ of certiorari where the appellant might suffer an injustice from the trial court's erroneous impression of its lack of authority.
[1] A trial court has the authority under rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to withdraw an adjudication of guilt previously imposed within sixty days.
[2] An appeal from a trial court's denial of a motion for modification or reduction of a legal sentence under rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, may be treat…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a trial court does have authority under rule 3.800(b), to withdraw within sixty days an adjudication of guilt previously imposed”
Establishes the core holding that trial courts possess the authority Marsh sought to exercise
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarsh pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine and was adjudicated guilty and placed on probation. Within sixty days, he filed a motion for modif…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine. He was adjudicated guilty and placed on probation. Within sixty days, appellant filed a motion for modification of sentence, pursuant to rule 3,800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, requesting the trial court to modify the sentence by removing the adjudication of guilt. Citing State v. Beardsley, 464 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (trial court lacked authority to grant motion requesting that defendant’s adjudication of guilt be withdrawn), the trial court entered an order denying the motion for modification on the grounds that it was precluded from withdrawing an adjudication of guilt once it was imposed. Appellant appeals. We treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari, quash the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for modification of sentence, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
After the trial judge ruled on appellant’s motion and during the pendency of this appeal, this court decided Thompson v. State, 485 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In Thompson, this court ruled that a trial court does have authority under rule 3.800(b), to withdraw within sixty days an adjudication of guilt previously imposed. This court declined to follow the holding in State v. Beardsley and certified conflict with that case.
On appeal, appellant understandably relies on this court’s decision in Thompson in urging reversal of the trial court’s order. In response, the state filed a motion to dismiss arguing that appellant has no right to a direct appeal of a trial court’s denial of a rule 3.800 motion for reduction or modification of sentence. Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla.1979), affirming 343 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Bertone v. State, 388 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Ziegler v. State, 380 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); and Suggs v. State, 358 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
While the state is correct that the trial court’s discretionary ruling under rule 3.800(b) on whether to modify or re duce a legal sentence is not reviewable, this court can and will under the circumstances, treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. Smith v. State, 471 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
In Smith, the trial court held a hearing on the defendant’s motion for reduction of sentence within the sixty day limit prescribed in rule 3.800(b), but had to continue the hearing to a date outside the sixty day limit because the defendant’s witnesses were not available to testify.
At the hearing on the later date, the judge allowed defendant’s witnesses to testify but denied the motion on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to reduce the sentence after the expiration of the sixty days from the imposition of the original sentence. The Second District Court of Appeal disagreed, holding that the trial judge did not lack jurisdiction to reduce the sentence, even though the sixty days had expired, where the judge had effectively enlarged the time during which he could reconsider the defendant’s sentences by having commenced the hearing on defendant’s timely motion within the sixty day limit, although the hearing was reset for a later date which fell outside the sixty day period. Recognizing that the denial of a motion for reduction of a legal sentence under rule 3.800(b) is a nonap-pealable order, the second district treated the defendant’s appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. The court granted the petition, quashed the trial court’s order and remanded to the trial judge to reconsider the motion and to enter an order deemed appropriate upon consideration of the motion’s merits.
Because appellant might suffer an injustice resulting from the trial court’s good faith, but erroneous, impression that he was powerless to withdraw an adjudication of guilt once it was imposed, we follow the court in Smith v. State and treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the trial court’s order is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the trial judge so that he might consider appellant’s motion on its merits.
SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dixon v. State, 616 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…to exercise discretion to reduce a legal sentence pursuant to Rule 3.800(b) is ordinarily a nonappealable order, Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482, 484 (Fla.1979), overruled on other grounds, Jones v. State, 591 So. 2d 911 (Fla.1991); Marsh v. State, 497 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Davenport v. State, 414 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Ziegler v. State, 380 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), subject to limited exceptions not applicable here. See State v. Lapica-Falcon, 519 So. 2d 57, 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Se…
-
Arnold v. State, 621 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…st DCA 1990); Davenport v. State, 414 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Under some circumstances, however, the court may treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. See State v. Rhodes, 554 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In Marsh v. State, 497 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the court treated the appellant’s appeal from an order denying his motion to modify sentence as a petition for writ of certiorari. Because the trial court had erroneously believed that it was without the authority to withdraw an…
-
Diaz v. State, 931 So. 2d 1002 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…to permit the trial court to properly consider a motion to mitigate where the trial court has mistakenly found the motion to be untimely. See Arnold, 621 So. 2d at 503. See, e.g., State v. Rhodes, 554 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Marsh v. State, 497 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Smith v. State, 471 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In the instant case, although the appellant was sentenced on October 2, 2003, he filed a belated appeal of his judgment and sentence. The mandate on that appeal was issued on…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hallman v. State, 371 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 1979)
- Smith v. State, 471 So. 2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Hallman v. State, 343 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Ziegler v. State, 380 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Wilson v. State, 485 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- State v. Beardsley, 464 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Suggs v. State, 358 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- THE Florida BAR v. Lewis, 358 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Bertone v. State, 388 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)